My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP20330
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP20330
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:48:55 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 2:51:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
2/22/1990
Doc Name
1990 ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT TRHU TABLE 36
Annual Report Year
1990
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY REPORT
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 <br />a rapid rise and fall of flow rates during spring runoff. Stations 14 and <br />' 800 often do not flow during the fall and winter because they are near the <br />top of the drainage. Due to the spoil springs, Foidel Creek has flowed <br />' nearly year-round at site 800 since 1985. The flow at Station 8 is <br />maintained essentially year-round by the discharge from the underground mine <br />' and discharges from the spoil springs. Zero flows indicated for Sites 16, <br />69, 1001, 8, 1002, arrd 1C03 during the winter actually are usually due to <br />the streams being frozen, preventing a measurement of the flow. <br />The data indicates a fairly good correlation between upstream and downstream <br />' stations on each stream. As expected the upstream stations generally had a <br />lower flaw than the downstream stations on each stream. On Trout Creek the <br />downstream station showed a lower flow than the upstream station. This is <br />due to the large irrigation wit.lydrawals in 1989. There is poor correlation <br />' between Fish Creek Stations 16 and 1002 during the sluing runoff. This may <br />be in part due to the lack of ratings at high flows requiring extrapolation <br />of the curves to calculate the flows. The downstream sites at Mine 1, <br />however do show some effect due to spoil spring discharges. <br />t Water Quality <br />t Water quality samples are collected at all the primary sites on a regular <br /> basis. the water q~rality summaries are (resented on Tables 31 ttrrough 48. <br />' Plots of historic water <br />Fi <br />34 quality data for Foidel Creek ar e presented on <br /> gures <br />tlrrougir 37. A plot of historic water quality data for Fish Creek <br /> is presented on Figure 38. A plot of water quality data for Middle Creek is <br />' presented on Figure 39. Plots of historic water quality data for Trout <br /> Creek are presented on Figures 40 and 41. <br />No significant irrcrPase in salt loading is indicated by Lire 1989 data. Peak <br />' levels of corrduct.ivity at Statio~r 8 were high, but still within the historic <br />range. Tlris high level is probably due to the lower runoff in 1989. While <br />' the spoil springs are adding some manganese to Foidel Creek, the level at <br />Station 8 is still below the total recoverable standard of 1000 mg/l. The <br />spoil springs are causing a rise in the salt loading at Station 8; however, <br />' the effect diminishes downstream and is not causing any material damage. No <br />impacts were observed on the other streams. <br /> <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.